Thursday, June 20, 2013

Many who know me will recall that I make grand claims about being a writer, but rarely produce anything for people to actually read.

Well I've finally launched a writing journal - Writing the Absolute. The aim is to give me somewhere to share my writing progress and also provide snippets from my latest projects.

The first 6 weeks will be focussed on the Clarion West write-a-thon. Both myself and Georgina Kamsika are giving it a go.

My goal will be to write a first draft of my new screenplay, 'Edge of Tranquility'. It's quite a tough deadline as my fulltime job does take up a lot of time, but the write-a-thon seems a great way to get motivated and also earn a bit of cash for all the great work they do.

In terms of this blog, it fell into the dark recesses of the internet over the last few years. My recent rant about the slow destruction of Star Trek reminded me of how much fun I used to have writing about movies, politics and general rubbish. So I am going to try to do more on here, if only to give myself an excuse to geek out (as if I needed one!).

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Let's
get one thing out of the way, I do enjoy action, adventure summer
blockbusters. Not all of them, but as a genre they can be great fun.
Bourne, Mission Impossible, Die Hard, Indiana Jones at their best can
be a great laugh. They aren't incredibly deep and they aren't likely
to win oscars, but they are exciting and when done well deliver a big
smile on the face as you leave the cinema.

Action
movies in 2013 are a lot different to the golden age of the genre in
the 1980s. They have moved towards more intense, 'non-stop' action
as studios find themselves competing more and more for the attention
of fickle movie goers.

'A
rip-roaring roller-coaster ride from start to finish' has become the
stock critics tag-line for the successful action blockbuster. Crank
up the action set-pieces, put the films main protagonists in more
and more peril and the audience will lap it up. Seems simple, but
the formula isn't a recipe for guaranteed success – see the
uber-flop John Carter on how it can go terribly wrong.

It
is for this reason that studios are so eager to re-use and reboot
older 'franchises'. They have already bottled the secret elixir of
success once, so why not again? Plus they even come with their own
legions of fans desperate to see more. If a studio was to announce a
remake or sequel to the Back to the Future franchise, the fans would
be queuing in cinemas around the World, even though the chances of
re-capturing the same mood that the 1980s originals achieved are
incredibly low – see Indiana Jones 4 as an example of how to rape
the childhood memories of an entire generation of movie fans.

It
didn't surprise me that Star Trek was the latest of these franchises
to come under the reboot fad in 2009. Star Trek was ripe for it. A
franchise with a fan-base that ranks in the top two Worldwide in
terms of size and obsessive compulsion towards the object of their
desire. Plus it's a franchise that had fallen on hard times. Recent
incarnations on both the big and small screen have failed to live up
to the legacy left for them. In 2009 it was, according to the studio,
time.

I've
been very vocal in my incessant dislike for the 2009 reboot of Star Trek by JJ Abrams. I wasn't against the changing of time lines or the
recasting of legends. I openly welcomed it. Several years earlier I
was calling for Star Trek to be given a break for a good few years
and then rebooted (BSG style). A reboot can go in a different
direction, can try something new, but alas the Nu Trek we were given
in 2009 fell far short of anything that resembled true quality in my
opinion.

So
it shouldn't be a surprise that I did not enjoy Star Trek Into Darkness, a movie so dark they have to put the word into the title as
a disclaimer. Except of course it isn't particularly dark and any
hint of tragedy is either brushed aside with bravado or dealt with
inside 5 minutes to ensure the movie keeps ticking over. Nor should it be surprising that I failed to honour my promise from 2009 to not see this sequel. I am... weak!

Don't
get me wrong, I actually thought STID hit all the right buttons I'd expect from a summer action flick.

Near
non-stop action

Epic
battles and fight scenes

Amazing
set-piece special effects

Light,
easy to follow plot

A
twist at the midpoint to allow the story to be expanded from 90 mins
to a whopping 132 mins

A
suitably sinister, well spoken (British) villain

Characters
that are carefully designed to fit the plot but are instantly
forgettable

Check
list complete. Good job JJ and crew.

And
that would be fine if that's what Star Trek is supposed to be. Big
budget action fare, set predominately in space.

This
goes back to my problem with the science fiction genre. These days as
long as something is set in the future or in space it classifies as a
Science Fiction story, despite it not sharing anything else in common
with the genre.

Now
this isn't JJ Abrams fault, the makers of Star Trek actually tried to
move the franchise into the more action-orientated arena 10 years
ago. The result was the terribly bloated and soulless Star Trek Nemesis. Aside from a superb performance from a young Tom Hardy (well
spoken British villain), the movie is one to forget.

When
JJ Abrams took over the reins he was clear that he wanted to make a
Star Trek that 'he would like'. A Star Trek more like Star Wars of
which he is a huge fan. He succeeded with the first new Trek film and
continues it here. But turning Star Trek into Star Wars is not
something I, or any self-respecting Trek fan, would have wanted.

I
love Star Wars (the original three), but they occupy a completely
different space to Star Trek. One is an action adventure fantasy set
in space and the other is a science fiction space opera.

Star
Trek is now Star Wars light. It is a franchise over-dependent on
thrills and special effects. This was the same criticism thrown at
George Lucas over his Star Wars prequels. He lost the spark of the
originals in those movies and couldn't get it back.

My
point with all this is that while these new Star Trek movies are
incredibly popular, it has been achieved by taking Star Trek away
from it's original genre and aims and planting it firmly in the same
arena as Transformers and GI: Joe. Action first, storytelling second
(or more realistically last).

Star
Trek was built on a very simple concept, that of the explorers making
those first true steps into space and the unknown. They were akin to
the trailblazers in the old West or the explorers of Christopher
Columbus' time. There was action and conflict, there had to be, but
it was, for the most part, driven by the dangers of the unknown. The
driving force behind this type of Science Fiction was that it allowed
the makers to tackle modern taboos and subjects that could not be
easily covered in a contemporary setting.

In
the 3 years of the original series we had stories that tackled
racism, religion, sexism, global war and the problems of nationalism.
The shows makers battled studio executives throughout as censors
picked through any attempts at concealing political messages during a
time of great upheaval. However episodes like City of the Edge of
Forever, Miri, Menagerie/Cage, Let that be Your Last Battlefield and
A Taste of Armageddon are prime examples of the storytellers using
their medium to get the audience to think beyond the pew pew action
explosion. Of course in the 1960s you couldn't simply rely on special
effects set pieces to cover up a light plot!

In
subsequent TV spin-offs Star Trek continued to create shows that held
a fine balance between action/adventure and growth storytelling. This
continued well into the 1990s with stories like The Outcast, All Good
Things, Chain of Command, Past Tense, The Die is Cast, Doctor Bashir
I Presume, Sacrifice of Angels, In the Pale Moonlight and Far Beyond
the Stars.

Now
of course there was some utter tripe that came out of Paramount
during this time (Spocks Brain anyone?), but the key aims of the
franchise were clear.

The
other major gripe with this new take on modern science fiction is
that such stories should, by definition, have some actual science
that has some basis in, you know, science. If you are going to try to
pass off your story under this genre, you could at least try.

So
to sum up 2 pages of ranting, these new movies are so far away from
science fiction they might as well be period dramas! Which brings me
nicely onto the actual film. As I've mentioned before, if you want
mindless action with a light plot then you'll probably love this
film. Scratch the surface and you'll be bitterly disappointed. I want
my Star Trek to at least make sense and this story fails on every
level.

We
start with a frenetic escape set-piece straight out of James Bond.
Kirk and Bones jump off a cliff and swim to the USS Enterprise, which
is submerged in an ocean to prevent it being seen by the aliens they
are monitoring because of the prime directive. Wait? Wouldn't the
safer option be to hide the ship in orbit and use shuttles or those
amazing transporter thingies?

Anyway.

Spock's
inside a volcano trying to stop it from erupting, because in this
universe Spock isn't logical and doesn't follow the prime directive
either. He uses a MacGuffin – that even scientists today would
point out couldn't possibly work – to save the day, but his rescue
leads to the Enterprise being seen by the aliens.

Back
on Earth, Kirk is suspended for breaching the prime directive because
Spock doesn't cover for him. Bad Spock. Grrrr! Kirks suspension lasts
for about the length of a t-mobile advert when Admiral Pike decides
he can be his first officer. Pike lasts about the length of another
t-mobile advert before he is killed in a terrorist attack on Star
Fleet HQ. Let's not go into too much detail about how a top brass
military meeting would have zero security and could be blasted away by a
lone assassin in a flying car, because Kirk is Captain
again! Hooray!

Kirk
and crew warp off to get revenge.

I'll
stop there with the synopsis because quite frankly it is the biggest
pile of convoluted crap I've seen since Indiana Jones 4. I'll just
ask a few questions, assuming you've seen the film:

Why
does the Enterprise have to fly after Khan (spoiler) in the first
place, when they have already mentioned him using Scottys crazy
'beam anything anywhere in an instant' technology? Couldn't they
just have beamed there?

In
fact given Scottys remarkable invention from the 2009 movie, aren't
Starships now completely redundant? I mean why build giant space
ships when you can just beam across light years of space at the
touch of a button.

Why
is Chekhov put in charge of engineering when he's clearly not
qualified? Wouldn't there be other crew who work in engineering up
to the task of replacing Scotty? Do they not have some form of
succession planning? Assistant Chief Engineers? No.

Why
are the Klingons even in this film? Their sole purpose is to be
beaten up by Khan. Oh right, because the real bad guy wants to start
a war. Isn't there an easier way than sending someone you don't
trust with some suspicious torpedos and just hoping he actually
fires them at your enemies? I mean, couldn't they just arrange for a
peace conference and then assassinate the Klingon leader. Wouldn't
that be a less ropey plan? Star Trek VI was a very good film.

Why
is no-one suspicious about Khan surrendering? I mean it's not like
we've seen supervillains surrender to gain an advantage in any other
recent movies (Dark Knight, Avengers, Skyfall).

Why
does it even matter that there is a big reveal about Cumberbatch
being Khan? Most of the people watching the movie are casual
movie-goers. Most of them have probably never heard of him.

What
is the point of Carol Marcus? She's a scientist who doesn't do
science, preferring to just hit ticking bombs at the last second to
save the day. And she gets her kit off. That's it.

If
the Enterprise has a really sophisticated brig for Khan why didn't
Kirk get dumped in it in the first film rather than being
inexplicably exiled to Hoth?

Why,
if you want to kill 72 superbeings, would you put them in torpedos
and then give them to Kirk? Couldn't they have just executed them in a more traditional way?

When
the Enterprise is attacked by the real evil bad guy, Admiral Marcus, they come to rest in our own solar system. Why does Spock only think to
contact old Spock? Why doesn't anyone think to contact Star Fleet or
in fact any other living soul that can maybe help them as Marcus has
clearly gone insane?

Why
is Kirk able to stun Khan with one shot but later in the movie about
12 shots fail to even make him flinch?

Why
are they one minute not able to transport torpedos around, but then
when it suits Spocks purpose hey presto they can?

Why
do 72 of the most advanced torpedos in the history of weaponry
exploding inside another Starship not completely obliterate it?
Haven't these people seen what happens to the Death Star in these
situations?

Kirks
death scene involves him going into the reactor and KICKING a
machine until it works. This is not even a question. No wait it is.
Are Star Fleet crews actually now just monkeys?

Kirks
death has zero emotional impact because at no point in these two
films has there even been a scene in which Kirk and Spock appear to
be friends. And what's the message here? That Spock has learnt
something he should have already known because he's a logical
Vulcan? He sure as hell knew it in Wrath of Khan.

Spock
has another bout of rage in which he beats someone senseless,
proving yet again that he isn't actually a Vulcan, but an unstable
human with pointy ears. In fact the only time he acts like a Vulcan
is when Uhura is whining that he doesn't have any emotions. Has she
even watched these two films? He shows nothing but emotion. Except
around her. Maybe he's trying to tell you something love.

Uhuras
sole role in this movie is to complain about Spock. Has feminism
really gone that far backwards since 1966, when a visionary writer
decided to put a black woman in a position of authority on a TV show
for the first time?

Superhuman
Khan blood saves Kirk 5 minutes after he died, completely removing
the emotional impact his death could have had. And yes I know I said
it didn't have any emotional impact in the first place, but I
suppose some 5 year old might have been mildly affected. If super
blood can save lives does that mean none of the crew ever have to
die in upcoming films?

Once
the dust has settled we have Kirk telling everyone he is reciting
the Star Fleet mantra about going on a 5 year mission and boldly
going and all that. Why, if that is the mantra of the entire Star Fleet is there, only seconds later, a line from someone (I think Bones) worrying
about how no one has ever done a 5 year mission?

I
give up. Seriously.

Even
Benedict Cumberbatch can't save this film. He over-hams it, and the
sooner he gets back on a flight to blighty the better. Great actor in
danger of being ruined by Hollywood. Only Karl Urban comes out of
this movie with any credibility. He yet again nails DeForest Kelley
as Bones and when I wasn't going blind from lens flares I was
genuinely impressed with the lad.

The
original show and movie franchise survived on the back of superb
chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Here there is nothing. Kirk
and Spock clearly do not like each other, making any scene in which
they apparently show their friendship utterly unbelievable.

Every
single crew member is clearly not worthy of serving in any military that has ever existed in the entirety of human history. Half of them have serious mental stability issues (Kirk,
Spock, Scotty) and the others look woefully out of their depth. The original Kirk was certainly reckless and had a lot of fight scenes, but just re-watch those episodes and films. He was clearly a keen tactician and took onboard
the ideas of his officers. Wrath of Khan is certainly not non-stop action, which leads me to believe that JJ Abrams has never actually seen the movie. Pines Kirk, meanwhile, is a raging, arrogant alcoholic
with literally no redeeming features. He doesn't just resent authority figures, he openly ignores all common sense and would last about 20 seconds in a real military outfit. Is this JJs template for Han
Solo in the new Star Wars film? Is so, enjoy Star Wars fans!

And
as for Spock. The basic power of that character was that he was an
outcast trying to fit in. It is a classic science fiction trope,
reused in other Trek series (Data, Worf, Seven of Nine, Odo) and the
wider sci-fi universe. Spock was the logical one yes but thanks to his childlike understanding of human morality, the viewer was able to learn from his eyes. This modern Spock is simply an angry and bitter
human being with pointy ears. When he does talk logically he is
quickly shot down by Kirk who inevitably proves him wrong. Lesson
here kids is that experience, knowledge and skill mean nothing.

I
know it's just a movie, but when you are a fan of something this
stuff matters. It matters so much to me I've written 3000 words about
it and posted on my blog for the first time in 4 years! From a
monetary perspective JJ Abrams has reinvigorated Star Trek, but at
what price? Will the millions who flocked to see this film be hooked
on Star Trek going forward or will they just see it as another summer
blockbuster to take or leave?

I
see that Spielberg and Lucas have railed this week on the direction
Hollywood has taken in recent years. While they conveniently ignore
the fact that their own careers have directly led the industry
towards disappearing up its own arse, they do have a key point. If the
movie isn't mainstream enough, why should the studios bother? This is
why we are getting more and more of the same action sci fi fare.
Something has got to give.I think a summer of re-watching proper Star Trek may be in order for me.

Star
Trek Into Darkness: 2/10 (it gets more than one purely for Karl
Urban)